United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Docket No. 78-70106; Unpublished
Judge Charles W. Joiner
Official Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Extra Contractual / Mental Anguish Damages
CASE SUMMARY:
In a lawsuit seeking recovery of first party no-fault benefits, Federal Judge Charles Joiner ruled that plaintiff’s claims for punitive and exemplary damages and for mental anguish damages due to a breach of the no-fault contract were not proper claims under the Michigan no-fault statute Accordingly, Judge Joiner ordered that these allegations be stricken from plaintiff’s complaint and that no testimony in regard to them be elicited or adduced at trial. Apparently, Judge Joiner's theory was that the provisions in the no-fault statute regarding interest (§3142) and reasonable attorney fees (§3148) are the only penalties (exclusive remedy) provided by the no-fault statute for wrongful withholding of no-fault benefits.
This case is also interesting in terms of the factual question presented therein Plaintiff had been seriously injured in an automobile accident in December of 1974. That accident necessitated laminectomy surgery and resulted in plaintiff’s total disability from work. Plaintiff was again involved in an accident in June of 1977 during which time she was insured by a no-fault company different than the one that insured her for her prior injury Plaintiff sought three years of wage loss benefits from the second no-fault carrier on the basis that the second accident increased her period of wage loss disability. Judge Joiner charged the jury that they could not award wage loss benefits or substituted service benefits to the plaintiff as a result of the second accident unless they believed that she had sustained a new injury or an aggravation of the old injury which, in some way, either extended, elongated, or prolonged her period of physical disability. If the jury believed that she was totally disabled prior to the second accident and had no reasonably expectation of regaining her physical capacity within three years following the second accident, then she would not be entitled to additional benefits. The Court submitted these issues to the jury by way of special interrogatories and, after due deliberation, the jury returned the unanimous verdict that the plaintiff had not been insured in the June 1977 accident. Thus, the jury did not have to entertain the subsequent interrogatories regarding the extent of her further disability, etc.
